As a criminal defense lawyer for over 30 years, Lynne Stewart defended the poor, the disadvantaged and those targeted by the police and the State. Such has been her reputation that judges assigned her routinely to act for defendants whom no attorney was willing to represent. One of these was the blind Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.

In 1994, Stewart joined former US attorney-general Ramsey Clark as part of the legal defense team for Abdel-Rahman. He had been arrested the year before and charged with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, not actual terrorist acts.

His real crime was being part of an armed Islamic group in Egypt that sought to overthrow dictator Hosni Mubarak, at the time a staunch US ally.

Any group that fights a US ally is slapped with the label “terrorist”. That happened with the armed wing of the African National Congress, because it fought against the US-supported white racist apartheid regime in South Africa.

Stewart came to believe the “Blind Sheik”, as the press called him, was innocent.

Adbel-Rahman was indeed blind, and suffered from other serious medical problems. After his conviction in 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison plus 65 years ― a sentence Stewart called “outlandish”. He was interred in a prison medical facility, where he has remained since.

Stewart continued to visit him in prison, and represent him regarding post-conviction issues. In 2000, Abdel-Rahman asked her to release a statement from him to the press, which she did.

At the time, this action on her part was not viewed as a crime by the US government. But that changed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In 2002, Bush’s attorney-general John Ashcroft announced that Stewart was being indicted on the grounds that, by releasing the statement to the public, she was materially aiding a terrorist group.

The government claimed that the sheik was using the press release to communicate with his group in Egypt, Al-Gama al Islamiyya, which the US arbitrarily labelled a “terrorist” group.

Actually, at the time, Abdel-Rahman backed a ceasefire between the group and the Mubarak regime. However, he left it up to the fighters on the ground to decide whether to continue the ceasefire.

(It should be noted that the new Egyptian government is demanding the US release Abdel-Rahman.)

This was the basis for the “materially aiding” a terrorist group charge. The charge was dismissed in 2003, but she was soon re-indicted on charges of obstructing justice and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism. In 2006, while the Department of Justice demanded a 30-year sentence, Judge John Koetl, handed down a 28-month sentence noting: “By providing a criminal defense to the poor, the disadvantaged and unpopular over three decades, it is no exaggeration to say that Ms. Stewart performed a public service not only to her clients but to the nation.”

That sentence, however, was not to stand as the Second Circuit Appellate Court, withdrew Lynne Stewart’s bail — even though her case is still before the courts — and remanded the case back to Judge Koetl with the harsh demand that he revisit his sentence and issue a severely enhanced one. On July 15, 2010, Judge Koeltl increased Stewart’s sentence from 28 months to 10 years imprisonment. This has become a virtual death sentence for Lynne Stewart as breast cancer that had been in remission prior to her imprisonment metastasised.

The conservative medical prognosis by the oncologist contracted by the prison is that Lynne Stewart has but 16-months to live. Breast cancer, in remission prior to her imprisonment, reached Stage Four more than a year ago, emerging in her lymph nodes, shoulder, bones and lungs.

Despite repeated courses of chemotherapy, cancer advances in her lungs, resistant to treatment. Compounding her dire condition, Lynne Stewart’s white blood cell count dropped so low that she has been isolated in a prison hospital room since April 2013 to reduce risk of generalized infection.

Under the 1984 Sentencing Act, upon a prisoner’s request, the Bureau of Prisons can file a motion with the Court to reduce sentences “for extraordinary and compelling reasons,” life threatening illness foremost among these.

A Compassionate Release was recommended months ago by Warden Jody R. Upton, under whose watch Lynne has been incarcerated at Carswell Federal Prison. Months later a three paragraph response came from Kathleen Kenney, General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C. which stated that Compassionate Release had been denied on the grounds that Lynne’s “health is improving.”

A recent re-application for compassionate release meets all the criteria specified in guidelines issued by the Bureau of Prisons in August 2013. That application is still awaiting approval.

Your action now can lead to her freedom so that she may live out her remaining days with the comfort and joy of her family and those closest to her, including her devoted husband Ralph Poynter, many children, grandchildren, a great grandchild and lifelong friends.

Given the current state of the US administration, the so far called for actions such as contacting various members of the administration, aren’t likely to get much attention, but that shouldn’t prevent us from taking action or letting up on the pressure on the government to do the right thing.

PRESIDENT OBAMA
The White House
Pennsylvania Ave,
Washington, DC 20500

Call the US embassy or consulate in your own country.Other actions such as rallys and vigils have been planned to coincide with Lynne’s 74th birthday on October 8th. Join or set up one in your own locale. Let others know about the case and encourage them to do something.

This post has been motivated by an increasing dismay in the face of people’s goldfish memory of recent global events and chronic ignorance/lack of awareness regarding how US foreign policy is formulated and executed. Although the country being discussed is Iran it’s easy to see how this kind of thinking, planning, and execution reflects what went on/is going on in……….(fill in from the list of Balkan/Middle Eastern countries).

This article, by one of the best sociopolitical analysts and commentators around, is valuable not only for it’s insights, but also for the simple and direct suggestion for individual and collective action, the former making very clear the need for the latter. Pass it on.

While the corporate owned media has the plebeians arguing over whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons or if it intends to commit genocide against the Jews (the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel actually resides in Iran), the debate is already over, and the war has already quietly begun. Before it began, however, someone meticulously meted out the details of how it would unfold. That “someone” is the mega-corporate backed Brookings Institution.

The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support “indigenous democratic political movements and transitions” in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.

The Brookings Institute itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America’s biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institution’s board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.

To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.

Motivations Should be Obvious

We must look into the minds of those that shape US foreign policy and sweep aside the distracting rhetoric they feed us. US foreign policy is shaped by organizations like the Brookings Institute which consist of members of the largest corporations and banks on earth. These corporations are not only disinterested in security, but thrive on the war and conflict insecurity breeds. (See “War is a Racket” and Eisenhower’s Warning.)

Iran not only possesses massive oil reserves and an economic, political, and militarily strategic location in relation to Russia and China, it also boasts a population of 76 million. This is a large population that if left sovereign and independent can viably compete against the West’s degenerate casino economy, or if invaded and corrupted, can become 76 million more consumerist human cattle.

The sheer scale of the military options considered by Brookings’ strategy would be a boon alone for the defense contractors that sponsor it, whether the operation was a success or not. The incentive to domineer over Iran is quite obvious and only made more attractive from a corporate American point of view when considering all the risks of such domineering are completely “socialized,” from the dead troops, to the broke tax payers. No matter how insane the following report may sound, keep in mind, “they have nothing to lose.”

The globalists run think-tanks all over the world like Brookings where their policy wonks generate an immense amount of strategic doctrine. This doctrine then converges to form a general consensus. Knowing the details of this doctrine beforehand can give us clues as to what to look for on the geopolitical chessboard as their gambits play out.

Green revolutions, resigning admirals, bizarre troop build-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist attacks within Iran, and high profile assassinations all make sense if you are aware of the playbook they are working from. The hyped and very fake “war on terror” being ratcheted up on the home-front is also a telling and alarming sign, perhaps the most alarming of all.

Page 1: Bottom Line

With frank honesty, the report opens by declaring Iran a confounding nation that undermines America’s interests and influence in the Middle East. Not once is it mentioned that the Islamic Republic poses any direct threat to the security of the United States itself. In fact, Iran is described as a nation intentionally avoiding provocations that would justify military operations to be conducted against it.

Iran’s motivations are listed as being ideological, nationalistic, and security driven – very understandable considering the nations to its east and west are currently occupied by invading armies. This is the crux of the issue, where it’s America’s interests in the region, not security, that motivate it to meddle in Iran’s sovereignty, and is a theme that repeats itself throughout the 156-page report.

Page 11: The Nuclear Non-Threat

The report concedes that Iran’s leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The possession of nuclear weapons would be used as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of RAND note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on page 24, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran’s national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests.

Page 23: Persuasion

The first option on the table is a means to coerce the Iranian government, without regime change, through crippling sanctions verses incentives. The incentives, in turn, seem more a relief from American imposed torment than anything of actual substance.

One incentive in particular is very telling. Brookings suggests “security guarantees” from an American invasion to address the very real concerns that would motivate Iran to construct nuclear weapons in the first place. Brookings notes that concrete action would would be needed by the US in order to fulfill this incentive, including drawing down US forces in the Middle East, a concession Brookings itself admits is highly unlikely over the next several decades.

Brookings interjects at this point, a brazen admission that under no circumstance should the US grant Iran a position of dominance nor should there be any ambiguity about what the US sees as Iran’s role in the region. It is most likely postures like this that have driven Iran to such extremes to protect itself, its interests, and its very sovereignty.

This option of “persuasion” appears to have already played out and failed, both in drawing concessions from Iran through meaningless offers and at marshaling the international support needed to make additional sanctions effective.

Page 65: Total War

Indeed a conventional war with Iran is currently impossible. The globalists at the Brookings Institute acknowledge that. What is worrying is that they believe it would not be impossible if only America was presented with the “proper” provocations. Brookings’ experts go on to say that Washington could take “certain actions” to ensure such provocations took place.

Furthermore, Brookings states that Iran has already gone through extreme measures specifically not to react to American provocations, raising the specter that provocations may take the shape of a staged event instead, should full-scale invasion be sought.

This is where the tireless efforts of 9/11 Truth have paid off and now stand between the American people and a costly, unprecedented war. They have at the very least made the term “false flag” mainstream, raising the stakes exponentially for anyone attempting to stage provocations.

Page 103: Supporting a Color Revolution

Hailed as the “most obvious and palatable method” of bringing about the Iranian government’s demise, Brookings suggests fostering a popular revolution. It brazenly admits the role of the “civil society organizations” in accomplishing this and suggests massive increases in funding for subversive activities in Iran.

Of course the United States has already passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, directly funding Iranian opposition groups inside of Iran with the explicit objective of overthrowing the current government. The passage of the act was followed by the 2009 “green revolution,” which Iranian security forces were able to put down.

Currently, the “green revolution” in Iran is gearing up again. The US State Department and corporate sponsored Movements.org has been following and supporting the US-backed Iranian uprisings since the beginning. Iranian-American Cameran Ashraf, described as a senior fellow at Movements.org, participated in the 2009 event. Movements.org featured on their front page recently, information on the upcoming “green” revolution set to feed off the US backed overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Indeed this option is currently being pursued. Brookings specifically mentions threatening Iran with instability as a means to leverage concessions from the government. It goes on to explicitly call for the promotion of unrest within Iran’s borders, and when coupled with the crippling sanctions Iran is already under, constitutes an overt act of war as pointed out numerous times by Congressman Ron Paul.

Brookings also suggests the use of military force in conjunction with their staged color revolutions, recognizing Iran’s well developed internal security apparatus. This was not done in 2009, but should be considered and looked out for each time the “green” revolutionaries come out into the streets.

Page 113: Supporting Real Terrorism

Despite the shameless bravado displayed throughout the entire report, no section is as shocking as the one titled “Inspiring an Insurgency.” Brookings is outright advocating the funding, training, and triggering of a a full-blown armed insurgency. The report specifically mentions Ahvazi Arab separatists, which would later be the subject of Seymour Hersh’s “Preparing the Battlefield” where he exposes the option as already being set in motion within Iran.

Kurds in the north, and Baluch rebels near Pakistan in the east are also mentioned as potential receipients of US aid in conducting their campaigns of armed terror against the Iranian people. The CIA is selected to handle supplies and training, while Brookings suggests that options for more direct military support also be considered.

In their subsection, “Finding a Proxy,” Brookings describes how the use of ethnic tensions could fuel unrest. It laments the fact that many ethnic minorities still hold nationalism as a priority along with their fellow Persians. And despite being on America’s official terrorist list for having previously killed US military men, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) are given ample consideration within Brookings’ report.

In their subsection, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings describes various methods of harboring their stable of US funded terrorists within the nations currently occupied by US troops and how to ferry them in and out of Iran between operations.

Page 145: Bringing it all Together

Brookings suggests that no single option is meant to stand alone. It suggests that options be pursued concurrently. Apparently Brookings’ advice has been taken to heart as we have seen in the news, from Seymour Hersh’s reports of covert US-backed terrorists, to the overtly staged “green” revolutions, to the sabotage and assassinations plaguing Iran’s nuclear program.

While it is quite obvious that many of Brookings’ policies are being carried out verbatim, what is most alarming is what’s suggested next should these combined ploys fail.

From the report itself, page 150:

“A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency for extreme circumstances. Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end.

Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past. Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold.

For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime.

Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.”

Considering Operation Northwoods, the falsified Gulf of Tonkin event, the myriad of lies that brought us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan, not the least of which was 9/11 itself, it is truly a frightening specter to think about what might come next.

We already see the absurd security apparatus being put into place across America and the various declarations by European leaders that “multiculturalism” has failed, setting the stage for a “clash of civilizations.” There is also an uptick in rhetoric by American leaders warning of an impending terrorist attack. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US might attempt to provide their own “provocation” for war in the Iranians’ stead.

Final Thoughts

It is quite obvious Brookings’ suggestions and their execution are detrimental to all involved, from our brave but gravely misled troops, to the tax payers fleeced by underwriting the war, to the decimated Iranian people. Boycotting the very corporations sponsoring this policy undermines their self-serving objectives regardless of the means by which they try to accomplish them. Their very ability to fund studies like this, let alone carry them out is a direct result of our daily patronizing of their mega-corporations. Raising awareness that corporate interests, not security concerns, are the prime motivations for conflict with Iran is also essential in convincing citizens of both countries to step back from the brink.

In this world today, events seem astronomically bigger than any one of us. We feel there is no certainty we can succeed against such odds. What is essential to understand though, is that while acting does not guarantee success, not acting most certainly guarantees defeat. Follow the brave example of 9/11 Truth and other activists in the growing alternative media – fight against the manufactured consensus by adding yourself to a consensus on truth.

This is the transcript of a video which is viewable and downloadable in multiple languages from The Corbett Report

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

A most curious thing. I’ve just been contacted by the admin for the Psyclone Facebook page and told that an attempt to post this link was denied on both the Psyclone page and their personal page, after which they logged out and were then unable to log back in. Curious, like I say, and not that surprising. Here then is the video and the link. Maybe try posting it yourself and see what happens.

I really enjoy these little periods of amused satisfaction that come after years of bashing my head against the wall of people’s cognitive dissonance, denial and outright ignorance, when the evidence has filtered between the cracks enough to create a wave that just washes over the wall, leaving a silence where once there was the lowing of the herd.

The subject of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) is finally in the mainstream. Solar Radiation Management (SAM) by SAG is probably known to more people through the term ‘chemtrails’, a word used to describe the trail of deposited aerosolised chemicals in the sky

Recently:

Swedish Green Party leader Pernilla Hagberg came forward on the issue, saying that the sprayings are a joint endeavour by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US National Security Agency (NSA), as well as the Swedish government in her own country, to modify atmospheric conditions via deliberate aerosol spraying efforts.

Former Premiere of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm sent a letter to dozens of politicians across BC calling for action in response to the dangers of climate control.

Last month saw the Global March Against Chemtrails with marches in places around the world.

There is a mountain of data on ‘what’ it is, which supports and or gives rise to speculation into the possible ‘whys’. The links in this article make a good starting point.

The sole purpose of this post is providing data on how individuals can mitigate the potential negative health consequences of, in particular, increased heavy metal concentrations in the environment.

Researchers and analysts are unanimous in their findings regarding aluminium being a primary ingredient in the chemical cocktail we’re being blanketed with. Aluminium is a selective neurotoxin and a nerve cell poison of specific affinity for the brain. Its degenerative effects on the brain are known to many, so much so that aluminium cookware is no longer available.

How then do we protect ourselves from exposure? Given that the chemicals are in the air, water and soil, it’s practically impossible to avoid ingesting them. Because of that, strategies need to focus on removing the compounds from our bodies on a regular basis. Fortunately, as is so often the case, Nature provides safe and effective means for doing that. The following is a post written for Natural News that lists several effective and accessible ways of removing, not only aluminium, but all toxic metals from the body.

Protect Yourself from Poisons in the Sky
by Paul Fassa

(NaturalNews) There are ways to protect oneself from chemtrail toxins and rid oneself of toxins that are in them. Most of the methods of detoxing chemtrail poisons are very workable for virtually all toxic metals, regardless of their source. In case you`re fairly new to the subject of chemtrails, or wish to find out more on what toxins are in those fascinating chemtrails that too frequently decorate the sky, visit http://www.naturalnews.com/026200.html.

Toxic metal molecules, such as aluminum and barium within the sprayed chemtrails, invade various cells and perform a “molecular mimicry.” This mimicry involves displacing important mineral molecules in human cells and binding toxic molecules to those host cells. Eventually, a destructive process occurs on cellular and DNA levels. Because of that binding, a chelating agent is needed to remove those mimicking molecules

Hair analysis, urine testing, and blood testing can provide a detailed list of metal toxins and their levels. Those tests are not accessible to everyone. If you are in a chemtrailed area and you are experiencing less than normal health, problems focusing, lethargy, low energy, and memory problems, it wouldn`t be a bad idea to look into any form of chelation within your budget or comfort zone.

Chelation

The word is derived from chelae, which means claw or pincer. The idea is to remove blockages or toxins through microscope “claws” or “traps”. These traps are contained in liquids for the body`s assimilation. Then the toxins, now captured and trapped in other molecules, can be eliminated by the body`s normal digestive process. There are chelation agents, such as EDTA, which can be administered intravenously or orally.

EDTA chelation agents are synthetically produced chemicals. They have not shown the ability to withdraw a wide spectrum of heavy metal toxins. It seems that sometimes EDTA will disperse the heavy metals into other tissues and organs instead of facilitating complete removal. And there have been serious side effects reported from EDTA chelation.

However, there are less expensive, more natural chelation agents and methods, which can be administered without medical supervision.

Chelating Metal Toxins With Zeolite

Zeolite is a relatively inexpensive chelation agent available only on line currently from several sources. It is well suited for removing metal toxins from tissues and blood while ridding them without hazarding other organs. Its molecules have the ability to capture metal toxins of all types and keep them enclosed until the zeolite particles are expelled from the body via urine or stool. Buyer beware: High prices may not be an indication of superior quality among liquid zeolite products.

Zeolite is found in earth. Because it is composed of particles that are negatively charged, it attracts items that are positively charged. Zeolite`s molecules are considered “molecular sieves” because they can contain other molecules and keep them caged within. These molecular sieves of zeolite are negatively charged, and they attract positively charged metal toxins like a magnet. Consequently, in its original mineral earth form, it is not pristine.

Whatever positively charged toxins that were part of the earth or water in that area have been captured by the active zeolite particles. The raw zeolite is not merely inactive because it has taken in its quota of other molecules. That raw form of zeolite is toxic since it has attracted metal toxins within the surrounding earth. This is why purifying the zeolite is necessary for human consumption.

Some zeolite processors purify raw zeolite by using heat, others by using chemicals. There is disagreement and controversy among zeolite producers over which method may have a more negative impact on the efficacy of zeolite. Apparently, this issue has not been completely resolved by third party testing. The microscopic zeolite particles are suspended in a neutral liquid, often purified water, for easy consumption.

Detoxing and Chelating With Fulvic Acid

Even though not as touted and well known as zeolite products, fulvic acid has been around for a very long time. It has even been used in Ayurvedic Medicine, possibly the oldest accessible healing protocol in existence. It is a powerful overall detox and heavy metal chelation agent. It is well researched and used within the mainstream medicine halls of China, Russia, and India. The Tibetan Mountains offer possibly the richest source of pristine fulvic acid shales.

Fulvic acid is sometimes used as a liquid base for Zeolite molecules, even though it has its own chelation properties similar to zeolite. Fulvic acid has many other health restorative ramifications, which are supported by clinical reports. It has been used successfully in China to treat a variety of serous, stubborn lung disorders.

The lungs and the brain are the most obviously affected organs from chemtrail spraying. The health benefits observed and recorded for fulvic acid are too numerous to mention in this article. Check out the appropriate URL or link in the “sources area” below for a pdf medical report dealing with fulvic acid uses in clinics and hospitals. Fulvic acid is available and inexpensive.

Chelating With Clay

Bentonite clay baths have been known to pull out toxins from the body, and they are also recommended for heavy metal toxins. The tiny flakes that compose the clay are similar to both zeolite and fulvic acid. They contain negative ions that attract the positive ions of toxins and pathogens.

Though effective, the clay bath routine calls for caution. It is advised to not immerse the body fully, especially if one has a heart condition. It is also advised to separate clay baths at least a week apart. Mineral supplementation is also recommended because the clay does pull out some of the body`s beneficial minerals as well.

Chlorella and Cilantro: A Diet for Chelation

The combination of a super food, chlorella, and the highly accessible herb cilantro with its leaves of coriander, forms an excellent daily diet protocol for heavy metal toxicity. A common usage is a daily heavy dose of chlorella and cilantro.

You can make a cilantro pesto that can be used to dress pastas or other foods, or to take daily by the spoonful. One site recommends two spoonfuls of this pesto daily. If you know how to make pesto, just replace the basil leaves with cilantro. Or simply find a regular pesto recipe and substitute cilantro for basil. Consider cilantro as the active ingredient for chelation. Here`s a somewhat pricier recipe for pesto specifically designed to optimize chelating heavy metals:

According to Mike Adams of Natural News, the maximum benefits of chlorella are achieved with a daily dose of 5 grams. That is accomplished easiest and least expensively by using the powder form of chlorella mixed into juices. His terrific, comprehensive free ebook, Superfoods for Optimum Health: Chlorella and Spirulina, can be downloaded via the URL or link below in the source area.

So the combination of consuming cilantro and chlorella as part of a daily diet regime will help chelate heavy metal toxins considerably, as well as other toxins, while building good overall health. And this dietary regime is not expensive to maintain over the long term. It would be optimum to combine this “poor man`s” chelation and detox method with one or more of the chelation agents mentioned earlier in this article. You can do your research on those chelation agents while starting on this dietary approach.

Regardless of which regime, protocol, or chelation agent you pursue, protecting yourself from chemtrials or any other source of toxins requires the foundation of sound health practices. Those include avoiding processed food additives, drinking pure water, eating organic produce and whole grains, decent exercise, sufficient rest, a good attitude in general, and above all not stressing over chemtrails!

About the author

Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding others toward a direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom. You can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

At 10 am on Thursday 1 August 2013, the GreenNet ISP was taken down by a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. This resulted in a loss of routing to the network and a loss of services to a sizable number of websites, including the Centre of the Psyclone.

In a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, an attacker attempts to prevent users from accessing information or services. By targeting a computer and its network connection, an attacker may be able to prevent access to email, websites, online accounts (banking, etc.), or other services that rely on the affected computer.

The most common and obvious type of DoS attack occurs when an attacker “floods” a network with information. When you type a URL for a particular website into your browser, you are sending a request to that site’s computer server to view the page. The server can only process a certain number of requests at once, so if an attacker overloads the server with requests, it can’t process your request. This is a “denial of service” because you can’t access that site.

In a typical DDoS attack, the assailant begins by exploiting a vulnerability in one computer system and making it the DDoS master. The attack master, also known as the botmaster, identifies and infects other vulnerable systems with malware. Eventually, the assailant instructs the controlled machines to launch an attack against a specified target.

A computer under the control of an intruder is known as a zombie or bot. A group of co-opted computers is known as a botnet or a zombie army. Both Kaspersky Labs and Symantec have identified botnets — not spam, viruses, or worms — as the biggest threat to Internet security.

Greennet have yet to identify the assailant, but one analyst commented that the scale and magnitude of the attack suggested government or corporate (if anyone knows of a clear distinction, please let me know!) sponsors. This wouldn’t be surprising since GreenNet is an ethical ISP that connects people and groups who work for peace, the environment, gender equality and human rights.

This morning Greennet experienced a second DDoS (Dedicated Denial of Service) attack. The current attack has not had the same widespread effect on systems as last week’s attack, but may result in temporary inability to access The Centre of the Psyclone website. Thanks to measures taken in response to last week’s attack, any disruption should be shorter than the previous four-day downtime.

A brief note: A well-meaning SEO-oriented friend advised me recently that the length of this post overshot the ideal word count target of 500 words, (by around 4000 as it happens!) which put me in danger of losing my audience. My reply was that the purpose of the blog itself was to provide a wide spectrum of relevant and balanced information for people looking to protect and support themselves, family and friends, and anyone that couldn’t concentrate longer than the time it took to read 500 words was reading the wrong material anyway.

This blog, though informal, is meant for the serious out-of-the-box researcher, not someone surfing for byte-sized entertainment. Information presented through this blog is collated from as many sources as possible to streamline user’s access to data, of the kind not normally found floating in the mainstream. Similarly, this and subsequent posts won’t contain images except those that contain additional or supporting information. Data-sharing is the objective here, and I balk at patronising with images such as, in the case of this post, a syringe held in latexed hands with an out-of-focus child on a parent’s knee in the background, or a pharma company logo, or, or…

As well as throughout, links to valuable data outlets are provided at the end of most posts.

___________

Before I get on to showing you how measles is good for you, I’d like to examine various aspects of this latest scare show.

I’ve come to it a little late and The Measles Scare is in full swing. The media are keeping people poised with up to date information about the epidemic. A national immunisation catch-up program is running smoothly. If we’re careful and do as we’re told, we may avoid a catastrophe.

We’re not out of the woods yet though. The Independent recently predicted that a ‘very large outbreak’ of measles could hit London.’

Some vectors identified as virus-carrying have been ‘subsections’ of society known to have decided against vaccinating their children. According to experts these parents are putting others at risk from their potentially infected children. Interestingly, the pupils of private schools have been identified as one of the subsections because of the number of middle-class parents who decided against the vaccination programs in the 1990s.

Middle class, that’ll be the same income bracket that has the means to choose organic food for its higher nutritional content and absence of agrochemical poisons and genetically modified aspects. A social segment whose academic and media parameters are generally wider than the parameters set by the birdseed papers and TV media looked to for information by what Huxley would have called the Epsilons, and by Orwell, the proles.

Gypsies and travellers have also been identified as ‘reservoirs of the disease’.

That phrase, ‘reservoirs of the disease’, along with numerous others has at times made the researching for this post quite frustrating. In the last couple of days I’ve read around 200 current articles, papers and posts concerning measles and vaccinations. Prior to that has been an over two-decade interest in and study of human health, particularly in relation to the health industry (note the phrase).

Reading through government health industry statements and press releases, and media reports has angered me several times, even to the point of cursing the sly, manipulative deceiving and outright lying of various outlets and individuals, who very often appear to be working together to promote the pro-vaccination party line and denigrate any opposition. A gaggle of ‘experts’, ‘specialists’, ministers, coordinators, et cetera, ad nauseum have been trotted out to bleat the doctrine, measles is potentially fatal, vaccinate now. Parents, those who it is hinted at are responsible, along with Dr Wakefield who instigated the MMR mistrust, for this ‘epidemic’, are reassured that nobody judges them for the decision they made back then, they had just based their decision on a, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport called it, ‘piece of extremely bad science’, but now they had to vaccinate for everybody’s benefit.

Now even before the BBC reported the collapse of Building Seven of the World Trade Centre before it fell down, I’ve known not to trust anything that comes out of its mouth.

One of the experts trotted out by the BBC was Dr Paul Offit, variously described as a US-based measles expert, vaccine specialist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr Offit is a fairly well known and frequent commentator in favour of vaccinations who dismisses many vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. He is currently advocating American-style mandatory vaccinations in Britain.

Vaccine entrepreneur is another way Paul Offit has been described. In fact, he’s also known as Dr Paul “For Proft” Ofﬁt. What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that their measles expert Offit has already made millions of dollars profit from his ties to vaccines and the measles MMR vaccine maker Merck. Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy is an update to an earlier investigative research piece that revealed details of Offit’s ‘conflicts of interest’, a cliché too moderate to describe the shady goings-on.

“Offit, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, earned millions of dollars as part of a $182m sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.

The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the American CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the “market” for rotavirus vaccine – effectively, to vote himself rich.”

Coincidentally, the Department of Health has just successfully created a £25m market for a rotavirus vaccine in Britain, to be used on babies within weeks of them being born. It was reported last November that the government hopes to roll out GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) new Rotarix vaccine program. Rotovirus is not known to cause deaths in British infants but to cause sickness and diarrhoea. From this September GSK’s Rotarix vaccine is to be given to 840,000 babies every year in Britain, which will cost around £25m. The Department of Health claim they “believe” it will save the NHS £20million.

But what the BBC did not report in their current measles stories is that Dr Offit, in his position of authority on the American Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices, voted in 1998 for drug manufacturer Wyeth’s ‘Rotashield’ rotavirus vaccine to be approved to be given to babies. Just a year after the approval of Rotashield, the vaccine was linked to an increased risk of a serious bowel complication called intussusception. It was quickly taken off the market.

Dr Paul “For Profit” Offit was one of the members who voted yes three times to introduce this Rotashield vaccine (despite it not having FDA approval) and then abstained from the vote to suspend the use of the Rotashield vaccine despite the links to serious complications for babies.

An American government report, “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making”, was critical of the decision to introduce this vaccine in the first place “as it had not even been approved by the FDA” and noted that “It is clear that the VRBPAC and the ACIP (the American body that approves vaccines) are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the manufacturers of vaccines”. It went on to say, “The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”

Because of Offit’s and others’ votes to introduce Rotashield, this helped other rotavirus vaccines to be approved for use in America, one of which was GSK’s Rotarix. This was suspended from the market when it was found to be contaminated with pig virus DNA. The American Food and Drug Agency found Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine, from which Offit had made considerable profit, was also contaminated.

The FDA stated when they announced the reinstatement of the Rotarix vaccine that they would continue to monitor both vaccines for continued problems with contamination”

Did MPs or the BBC do their homework on the rotavirus vaccines being monitored by the FDA in America? Did the Department of Health read the latest update on Glaxo’s Rotarix announced by the FDA on 12Th September 2012, issued not long before the DoH announced the rollout of the Rotarix vaccine in Britain from this September? Because the FDA concluded from a GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix study in Mexico that, “as expected, because of the routine use of Rotarix in Mexico, most (698) of the 750 babies studied who developed intussusception had been vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of Rotarix.” Intussusception is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted.

Despite the possible link to babies developing serious health problems and contamination of the major rotavirus vaccines the Department of Health has just approved Rotarix to be given to 840,000 British babies every year in Britain, with the vaccination programme due to be promoted by doctors in Britain within the next few months.

What do the FDA now recommend regarding GSK’s Rotarix vaccine on the back of the results of the Mexican study?

“Parents should closely watch their infants for signs of intussusception, especially within the first 7 days after vaccination with Rotarix. These include, stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, blood in the stool or change in bowel movements. It is important to contact the child’s healthcare provider if the child has any of these signs at any time after vaccination, even if it has been several weeks since the last dose of vaccine.”

With the addition of Rotarix vaccine from this September, babies and children in Britain will now subjected to ten jabs and two oral doses of vaccine drops before the age of five with Department of Health claims that this is to protect them against 11 different diseases.

Should we consider this man, widely known as Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit, to be an “expert” in vaccine safety when he champions contaminated vaccines and abstains from voting to remove a vaccine linked to a life threatening condition?

Should we trust Offit’s claims on the BBC that MMR vaccines should be made compulsory, especially when he has consulted for the MMR vaccine manufacturer Merck and has personally made considerable profit from Merck and vaccines? In fact, in light of the facts around Dr Offit’s ‘conflict of interest’, shouldn’t the financial connections of other ‘experts’, ‘leading doctors’, ‘specialists’ and ministers be taken into account when reviewing what they say on the issue?

But what of Dr Wakefield, author of the paper said to have been responsible for parents in the 90s deciding against the vaccines?

Contrary to the impression cultivated by the media, Dr Wakefield is a vaccine advocate, not a critic. The conclusion of his research, which included a study of a number of autistic children, was that there was sufficient evidence to show that the triple vaccine played a causative role in the development of autism of those studied, and recommended that the shots be administered singly with 12 month intervals between.

One country that has eliminated the MMR vaccine in favour of three separate doses is Japan.

A slightly less obvious impression given by the media in their targeting of Dr Wakefield is that his was and is the only research to show a link between vaccines and autism. Well, happily for those of you that really are seeking to make an informed choice, I can tell you the Wakefield research isn’t the only research. Not by a long shot. Numerous scientists from around the globe have presented credible peer-reviewed research studies that indicate a direct link between the exposure to adjuvants and additives like aluminium and mercury, both widely known neurotoxins that have damaging effects on the brain and nervous system. Links are provided below for data sources

Despite the extent of the scientific research that proves a link between vaccines and a long list of induced damage, Department of Health mouthpieces still come out and make statements such as, ‘Every time there’s a health scare, parents withdraw their children from vaccination. But there is no evidence to show that the MMR jab is linked to autism and bowel disorders.’

However, thousands of families (between 2,000 and 5,000, the numbers vary between sources) have had enough evidence to have taken legal action claiming their children have been damaged by the MMR jab. About half believe it has triggered autism in their toddlers even though the Government has ruled out any link. Back in 2008, the US Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family’s protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey’s family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy’s injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

In 2008 an Italian court found that “there was a reasonable scientific probability that the MMR jab had triggered in Valantino Bocca an autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay”, and awarded Valentino’s parents compensation, to be paid by the Italian ministry of health. Valentino, developing normally, was given the shot at 14 months and started to suffer from diarrhoea, lost interest in food and within a few days lost the ability to use his spoon. Worse was soon to come when he began to be restless at night, screaming in pain for hours. It was later found that he was suffering from a painful bowel condition that is common in autistic children. With an adjusted diet of no wheat or milk, he was able to sleep but the autism symptoms continued, and even at the age of nine, he still does not speak.

Other recent court rulings against the MMR include a £90,000 payout for brain damage to a boy called Robert Fletcher, and a $1.5 million payout for Hannah Poling who received MMR and six other vaccinations in one day and then developed autism.

So, a large number of scientists and doctors have produced peer-reviewed research that demonstrates links between vaccines and a list of induced damages, courts are awarding compensation to the victims based on evidence that proves a link, but still the media promotes the mantra, ‘measles are deadly, vaccines are safe’.

Doing the research this time round, I was struck with the similarity to another piece I’d written that was evident even in the research stage. The same pattern, the same Modus Operandi, the same players, only back then the bogeyman was Swine Flu. I think the fact that I wrote an article on it, but also the fact that it wasn’t that long ago has made the parallels easier to see.

More often than not the criminal events conducted today copy a template of criminal events of the past, following an ‘if it worked before, it’ll work again’ mentality. An aspect of criminal investigations is the search for a modus operandi (MO), a particular way of working, which can act as a signature and reveal, if not specific agencies, a particular method that points to specific agency.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Swine Flu, But Didn’t Know You Should Ask was going to be called Those Who Forget History II, The Swine Flu Hullabaloo. Among other things it discusses the parallels between the ‘epidemic’ in the 1970s and the hype at the time, and clearly shows the recurring MOs and patterns mentioned. The article also links to one of the most comprehensive books on the subject of Swine Flu and the vaccination industry. The 1997 book Swine Flu Exposé by Eleanora McBean. Ph.D..N.D. (readable online) needs to be read by everyone. As McBean says, it’s about time a large and comprehensive book of the long concealed facts about vaccination is brought forth. This is the largest and most informative book on the subject ever written in America. It contains data collected from medical records, army reports, and startling findings from researchers all over the world. The book is intended to help combat the disastrous effects of vaccine promoters and their deceptive propaganda.

Another excellent insider’s view on how the health industry really functions in relation to immoral marketing, corruption and bribery, is Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About. Kevin Trudeau, an industry insider takes the lid off the American health service to expose very dodgy dealings that are replicated internationally. Fundamentally, it’s all about the money.

Humans are intrinsically healthy and tend to remain so if they are given nutritious, non-GMO foods, fresh air, and clean water. We have extremely effective protective barriers against infectious diseases, including our skin and immune system.

Knowing that these facts are true for all members of the human species, how did we come to embrace the idea that injecting solutions of chemically-treated, inactivated viruses, parts of bacteria, traces of animal tissue and heavy metals was a reasonable strategy for keeping human beings, babies, children and adults healthy?

I’ll tell you how. Marketing. But don’t take my word for it. The publications linked to above and the links below to sources of information provide the data you need if you want to know the truth about the health industry and/or the pharmaceutical industry. Industries both, one being effectively a subsidiary of the other, or its retail outlet. In fact, Big Pharma has potentially the biggest sales department in the world, using as it does international medical bodies like the World Health Organisation, national bodies like the Centre for Disease Control, the Federal Drug Agency, their counterpart health and drug authorities in most other countries, doctors, etc as marketing and promotion departments and sales personnel.

Seeing the collusion, corruption and bare-faced manipulation by so many supposedly independent entities, more than one observer has described this latest scare as a Psychological Operation or PsyOp. Using such language in a context like this invariably opens one up to the charge of conspiracy theorist. A PsyOp then, for those of you that missed that class, has been described by an ex-military veteran in the field as,

‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour … to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives… disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters’.

The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) test is the most widely taken academic qualification exam among 14- to 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The test questions are designed by the United Kingdom’s Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA).

Question 5 on the Science portion of the January 2008 test concerned the 1998 study that first raised concerns between the MMR vaccine and autism. In that study, published in the The Lancet, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues examined

12 autistic children after their parents raised concern that their conditions might have been caused by the MMR shot. Although the study did not find any causal relationship between the vaccine and autism, the authors concluded there was enough concern to recommend that parents instead give their children individual vaccines for each of the three diseases, spaced a year apart.

The GCSE test question was split into two parts. In the first part, students were asked to explain how the MMR vaccine functions to protect children from the three diseases. The second part briefly described Wakefield’s study, concluding by saying, “Dr Wakefield’s research was being funded through solicitors for the twelve children. The lawyers wanted evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.”

The students were then asked, “(i) Was Dr Wakefield’s report based on reliable scientific evidence? … (ii) Might Dr Wakefield’s report have been biased?”

Students were given points for part (i) only if they criticized the study for having a small sample size and for relying on parents’ anecdotal reports as evidence. They were given points for part (ii) only if they agreed that Wakefield might have been biased by being paid by parents/lawyers.

Wakefield accused the test writers of making false claims about him and his research.

Back to vaccines. Vaccines have several components:

Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens.

Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants

Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine.

If a “dirty bomb” exposed a large segment of US citizens simultaneously to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenza B, three strains of polio viruses, 3 strains of influenza viruses, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, the chickenpox virus, and 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, we would declare a national emergency. We would call it an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM”. The public outcry would be immense and our government would act accordingly.

And yet, those are the very organisms that we inject through vaccines into our babies and our small children, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems. Many are given all at the same time. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect a moment on that irony. (Sherri J. Tenpenny)

Do an Internet search on the chemicals listed above, if you want to shock yourself and really test your faith in the medical industry. Tween 80, for instance, is a chemical compound used in formulating the pesticide DDT.

Tween 80 can:

* Be used in pharmaceuticals to deliver nano-particles to the brain because they cross or disrupt the Blood Brain Barrier – which protects the brain.

* Suppress the immune system

* Promote epileptic seizures in rats

* Accelerate the development of female organs in rats

* Trigger cell death or ‘suicide’ called apoptosis

* Cause cancer in rats at the injection site

* Damage and promote intestinal damage in rats

* Cause bleeding disorders, kidney failure, liver failure, and death in infants who received a vitamin E product combined with Tween 80

* Possibly promote viral or bacterial infections

* Break down Red Blood Cells

* Cause damage to the heart when injected into rats

Tween 80 can be found in

* DtaP (Infanrix, Tripedia)

* DtaP-HebB-IPV (Pediarix)

* DtaP-Hib (TriHIBit)

* Human Papillomavirus (Gardasil)

* Influenza (Fluarix)

* Rotavirus (RotaTeq)

* Tdap (Adacel, Boostrix)

And then there’s the vaccination concept itself. The Government’s chief scientific adviser would have shown more medical understanding and professional integrity had he more fittingly described the concept itself as the ‘piece of extremely bad science. The subject can’t be summarised or paraphrased, so those who want to further their understanding of the concept and history of vaccinations will find links below that are good places to begin your own research, and there’s plenty of it to trawl through.

For now, I leave you with the wisdom of one Dr Richard Moskowitz who explains in plain terms Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. He says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.